FSI Channel Pressure

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that this is an exact analytical calculation with no solver, that Reynolds number is used to flag validity, and that the output includes fidelity, warnings, and an escalate_to field. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's safety and limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence contributes: the governing formula, the FSI purpose, the laminar validity condition, fluid defaults, and the return object. The description is dense but not padded, and the core calculation is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the exact return fields. It also provides the governing equation, applicability limits, parameter defaults, and downstream integration. An agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It maps velocity_m_s, length_mm, and gap_mm to the formula, explains the physical meaning of mu_pa_s and rho_kg_m3, gives water-at-20°C defaults, and includes units. Every parameter receives meaning beyond its bare name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific calculation: fully-developed plane-channel pressure drop via an exact formula. It also names the downstream consumers (fsi_plate_deflection and fsi_interface_balance), clearly distinguishing this analytical tool from the many solver-based siblings in the list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description defines the applicable regime (laminar plane-Poiseuille flow, Re ≲ 1400) and emphasizes that this is a no-solver analytical source for FSI pressure loads. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-laminar cases, but the validity condition and downstream coupling provide strong contextual guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.